Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
11 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Cases for vicarious liability? (3) |
Hollis v Vabu Konids v State transport NSW v Lepore |
|
|
Explain Hollis v Vabu |
The Plaintiff [Hollis] was acyclist who got hit by an unidentified person, who was working for theDefendant [Vabu] name on it.Held:The workers were therefore full fledged employees and thus the Defendant isvicariously liable. |
|
|
Explain Kondisv State Transport Authority |
-plaintiff was injuredwhilst working. The jib of the crane fell on him whilst it was being extended by an independent contractor hired bythe defendant. P sued the defendant. Held: defendant was not liable fornegligence of independent contractor, but it was personally liable to theplaintiff for breach of the duty it owed to him. |
|
|
Nsw v Lepore |
· The Plaintiff [Lepore] wasthe victim of sexual harassment by a public school teacher [Tortfeasor].Thereis no vicarious liability because intentional criminal misconduct is outsidethe scope of a teacher's duties. |
|
|
Define vicarious liability |
Someone who didnt do the tort but the blame is put on them because they can afford it |
|
|
Who can be vicariously liable? |
Employees not independent contractors |
|
|
Elements? |
1. Wrongdoer is an employee of the employer 2. employee commits a tort (intentional or unintentional) 3. tort was committed during the course of employment |
|
|
1. Wrongdoer is an employee of an employer |
- Distinguish between employee and independentcontractor (set rate, no tax, ownequipment) |
|
|
Multi factor test? |
the things court into account to see if employer or not) [hollis v Vabu] Control Mode of salary Maintenance of equipment Obligation to work exclusively for the employer Hours of work Provision of holidays Deduction of income tax Right to delegate and subcontract the work |
|
|
2. employee commits a tort |
Either intentional or unintentional |
|
|
3. tort was committed in the course of employment |
Act must be in the scope of employment but carried outthe wrong way – still in course of employment [bugge v brown] (wrongful mode –doing job differently/wrong way) Frolic: employee does something in their own interest– NOT in course of employment because employee is using their own time &resources
Employer says do something wrong – still in course ofemployment (lepore) |
